SHAN v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY (2026)

Chunjuan Shan appeals the May 2024 dismissal by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (LIRC) of her application for review of the previous dismissal of Shan's claim to unemployment benefits despite an unintentional overpayment to Shan of those benefits. Shan claims error on a variety of grounds, including that the termination of her employment was wrongful, that her untimely appeal to the LIRC was the result of excusable neglect, and that she is entitled to overpayment of benefits received in good faith. However, because Shan's appeal to this court is untimely, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits of Shan's appeal.

Background

Shan's underlying claim arose in August 2021, when she was mailed an “Overpayment Determination” by the Division of Employment Security (DES), which stated that Shan had received an overpayment of state unemployment benefits while also receiving federal benefits for “Pandemic Unemployment Compensation” benefits and “Lost Wages Assistance.” Shan's request for a waiver of the overpayment determination was denied by DES's Appeals Tribunal in June 2022. Shan appealed that denial, and the Appeals Tribunal set the appeal for hearing on August 2, 2023, which Shan failed to attend, resulting in the Appeals Tribunal's dismissal of her appeal. In April 2024, the LIRC received Shan's application for review of the August 2023 dismissal. Shan's application was dismissed as untimely by order dated and mailed to Shan on May 7, 2024. Shan did not file her notice of appeal to this court until April 12, 2025.

Throughout this process, Shan's address changed several times, from an address in Missouri, to an address in Tennessee, and finally to an address in California. Shan's brief recounts difficulties during this time with homelessness, illness, and lack of access to regular mail and internet.

Analysis

Shan appeals the LIRC's May 2024 dismissal of her application for review of the previous dismissal of her claim to unemployment benefits despite an unintentional overpayment to her of those benefits. Because Shan's appeal to this court is untimely, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits of Shan's appeal.

“Before addressing the merits of any appeal, we have a duty to determine, sua sponte, whether we have authority to hear the appeal.” Lex Grp., Inc. v. Clift, 616 S.W.3d 765, 767 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). Shan appeals a decision of the LIRC, which is governed by § 288.210.¹ Section 288.210 allows parties aggrieved by a decision of the LIRC to appeal “by filing [a] notice of appeal with the [LIRC]” no later than “twenty days after a decision of the [LIRC] has become final.” A decision of the LIRC becomes final “ten days after the date of notification or mailing thereof to the parties.” § 288.200.2 (emphasis added). Therefore, Shan's statutory deadline for filing her notice of appeal to this court was no later than June 6, 2024, which is thirty days after the LIRC mailed its decision to Shan on May 7, 2024. Because Shan did not file her notice of appeal until April 2025, her appeal is untimely.

“The untimely filing of a notice of appeal divests this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.” Ruiz v. DOTec Corp., 651 S.W.3d 227, 229 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022). “Section 288.210 ․ does not allow for the late filing of a notice of appeal—regardless of reason.” Id. “There is no mechanism under section 288.210 for seeking a special order [under Rule 81.07(a)² ] to file a late notice of appeal.” Id. Shan filed her notice of appeal to this court over ten months after the dismissal by the LIRC became final. We lack the authority to consider the reasons advanced by Shan for the untimeliness of her appeal and have no jurisdiction to consider the underlying merits of her appeal; therefore, her appeal must be dismissed.

Conclusion

Because Shan's appeal was filed beyond the statutory deadline for appealing a decision of the LIRC, her appeal is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All statutory references are to the Missouri Revised Statutes (2025).

2.   Even if Rule 81.07(a) were applicable, the party seeking a “special order ․ permitting a late filing of the notice of appeal” must request that “special order” no later than six months from the date the decision appealed from became final. All rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2025). Shan filed nothing within that six-month time frame.

Karen King Mitchell, Judge

Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge, concur.